Are Blood Transfusions Really Life Saving?

[Olinda]

Our own experiences support our assertions. Why do people assume that a transfusion will save a life? When there was no alternative offered, people will assume that the transfusion saved or prolonged their life, when they would in all probability have done quite well and with less risk with non blood alternatives. .

But as I said before, the article doesn't support your assumptions. To answer your question, people assume that a transfusion saves lives mainly because the improvement is prompt and clearly visible. That some might live after refusing transfusion doesn't alter that.

"What decisions in this issue are not "heavily influenced" by someone? Seriously."

IMO, any 'heavy influencing' should be done by qualified medical personnel who have actually examined the patient. And no one else. Seriously!

'The disfellowshipping aspect has nothing to do with our decisions because if that was the reason for refusing blood, then we have no foundation for our belief in the fist place, and no faith in God's word either. Those young people had a close relationship with their God and demonstrated that by their well reasoned responses. They were no coerced but fully cognizant of the issue they faced.....more bravely than most I would venture."

If a young person is completely uninfluenced by a consequence of their decision that will lose them both family and friends they would be superhuman.

"We do not take things lightly, nor do we make rash decisions about anything. We study the scriptures to ascertain what God's will is on any matter. Allowing organ transplantation to be a personal decision, acknowledges that some may have a conscience that allows this procedure...others may not. We do not judge each other on conscience decisions."

The question I asked was whether it concerned you that your religion forbade organ transfers (surely not mentioned in the Bible!) and then reversed that edict. In the meantime, jws died from renal failure and other preventable illnesses. I don't see a clear answer here. If forbidding organ transplants was not wrong, why is it now a conscience decision? Which is right?

"We also have no desire to break God's law to preserve this present life as if it were the important one. Our everlasting life is in the balance if we deliberately break God's law to save our life. We are all going to die from some cause anyway, so what is the fuss all about? We cannot even say whether we will be alive tomorrow.....all we have is the present. The decisions we make must not conflict with our conscience or we have already broken God's law. A bad conscience is not a good companion.

"

Is our life not a gift from God? Then how can it have so little value? As for the 'everlasting life', that seems to recede ever further with each redefinition of 'generation'.

But on the last sentence, we are in agreement!

 

[Pudding]

For decades now Jehovah's Witnesses have copped a fair amount of criticism for their refusal to accept blood transfusions for religious reasons. For those who believe that blood transfusions are the life saving procedure that they are claimed to be, please watch this video so that the facts can be brought to the public's attention. This is information provided by the Australian Government, not by Jehovah's Witnesses.

https://www.blood.gov.au/media

So we have to believe the studies is facts because a video is present in Australian Government's website?
When will the op ever provide any peer review to verify the validity of the facts inside that studies inside that video?
Does we have to believe it because a video say the studies is facts?

 

[Deeje]

You do realize you're arguing against people who have went to school for such things, right? People who have been trained and educated in the field and have degrees in medicine, but you're trying to say you know more than they do?

Seems to be a problem with comprehension around here.... .

It is the medical profession itself....people who specialize in that field of medicine who are now saying that blood transfusions are NOT as "life saving" as was once thought. It is not ME saying so. Do you understand this? A "paradigm shift" is a complete change of mind on the issue.....and urgent change is recommended.

For goodness sake...watch the video and see what happens to a person's circulatory system when blood is administered compared to when a volume expander is used. This evidence speaks for itself. The transfusion actually hindered the red cell delivery, whereas the volume expander actually facilitated the delivery of red cells that are in left in circulation......did you see the evidence? If you did, then your response is nothing but waffle.

It's the fact that people who need blood as so very easy to save, to the point that to not give them blood is just to let them die needlessly. There are risks involved with any medical treatment, but that doesn't mean treatment should not be administered. At the core of any and every medical treatment is the question of do the benefits outweigh the risks? When someone needs blood, the benefits pretty much always outweigh the risks, because to not administer treatment means someone is going to needlessly die when they could have been so easily saved. And these expanders you keep talking about are only suitable when the patient is not critical and does not need blood. Once you have lost so much blood, without more, you die. No ifs, ands, or buts about about it.

Have you listened to one word in the video? Even profound anemia can be treated quickly and sustainably without blood. This is not ME saying so.....the head of Anesthesiology at a major hospital says so along with specialists in that field of medicine in other countries. Please take your fingers out of your ears.

And how funny that when I type in "blood transfusion alternatives" in Google to look into it, the very first thing that pops up is the JW's website, and then it's the American Cancer Society saying expanders are only suitable if the patient does not need blood, then a British site saying expanders can be used in conjunction with blood to reduce the amount of blood needed, it also talks about patients having their blood drawn ahead of time to have it put in them should it be needed during surgery - called autologous blood transfusions which it lists as the number 1 alternative to traditional transfusions. Like it or not, until we learn how to create synthetic blood, blood transfusions are here to stay because it has proven itself over the years and decades to be a simple life-saving treatment that prevents many needless deaths.

Most of what you say here is now shown to be outdated. Better outcomes are being experienced with JW patients well beyond the expectations of those who predicted nothing but a bad outcome...certain death in fact. But they recovered in record time and with less complications after surgery.

Autologous blood (i.e storing your own blood for future transfusion,) is a personal choice for some people (not for JW's) and can be requested if one has advance warning about surgery. But it is the storing of blood that often causes problems. Also, taking your own blood and having it stored before a surgical procedure can lead to having a low blood count and cancelling of the surgery. This happened to my mother. She was too anemic for the operation and it had to be postponed.

JW's do extremely well without blood in all sorts of situations. Medical staff are often surprised because their training leads them to expect a bad outcome...but it rarely happens.

 

[Pudding]

Can JW receive Antivenin if they happen to bite by viper?
JW also don't accept any kind of vaccine?

 

[Deeje]

So we have to believe the studies is facts because a video is present in Australian Government's website?
When will the op ever provide any peer review to verify the validity of the facts inside that studies inside that video?
Does we have to believe it because a video say the studies is facts?

And they would have what reason to lie?
These are not just Australians....American and Swiss specialists are also saying the same things. Hospitals dedicated to bloodless medicine are now to be found all over the world.

Seriously.....what is with this difficulty in accepting that doctors can actually get things wrong?

 

[Pudding]

And they would have what reason to lie?
These are not just Australians....American and Swiss specialists are also saying the same things. Hospitals dedicated to bloodless medicine are now to be found all over the world.

Seriously.....what is with this difficulty in accepting that doctors can actually get things wrong?

A video say the studies is facts, you provide zero peer review to verify the validity of that facts, and you expect people to believe it?

 

[Deeje]

Can JW receive Antivenin if they happen to bite by viper?
JW also don't accept any kind of vaccine?

We can accept things that are not whole blood or made of its four major components.

I am personally not a fan of vaccines but that too is a conscience matter.

Blood fractions are a conscience matter because certain fractions are passed from mother to child in utero. If that happens naturally, then some have no issue with it.
But a child is a totally separate individual to its mother. They can have a different blood type altogether as well as other factors not shared. (e.g RH factor) What passes from mother to child is what God designed to.....blood is not one of them.

 

[Deeje]

A video say the studies is facts, you provide zero peer review to verify the validity of that facts, and you expect people to believe it?

Believe it or not...it's none of my business what anyone does with this information. It was presented FYI. OK?

 

[Pudding]

We can accept things that are not whole blood or made of its four major components.

I am personally not a fan of vaccines but that too is a conscience matter.

Blood fractions are a conscience matter because certain fractions are passed from mother to child in utero. If that happens naturally, then some have no issue with it.
But a child is a totally separate individual to its mother. They can have a different blood type altogether as well as other factors not shared. (e.g RH factor) What passes from mother to child is what God designed to.....blood is not one of them.

Okay, thanks for explain.

 

[Pudding]

Believe it or not...it's none of my business what anyone does with this information. It was presented FYI. OK?

It was not only presented as FYI, you've been debate with people that this article information is correct, that means you wish to convince them you're right but they're wrong. So far you haven't prove the validity of the studies of that video.

 

[Deeje]

It was not only presented as FYI, you've been debate with people that this article information is correct, that means you wish to convince them you're right but they're wrong. So far you haven't prove the validity of the studies of that video.

I mean to correct misconceptions. I believe that the video does that. It proves that God is right...not me. You can accept the information or reject it.
People are often slow to accept that they could be wrong about many things. It is human nature.

 

[Pudding]

I mean to correct misconceptions. I believe that the video does that. It proves that God is right...not me. You can accept the information or reject it.
People are often slow to accept that they could be wrong about many things. It is human nature.

Without verify the validity of that video, how can you correct misconceptions by using it?
You believe the video does that, you believe it proves God is right although you haven't verify its truthfulness of its validity.

 

[JoStories]

Not ignoring, just overwhelmed with too many replies. Hopefully the points that Jo raises will be addressed in other posts.

No offense intended.

And yet Pudding did have a very good point. Why have you not responded to the posts I have made that counter your argument, and quite well from my POV. I would be interested in why you have not responded. As a person with some pretty good medical background, including the education that goes with it, what do you have to say to what I posted?

 

[Deeje]

And yet Pudding did have a very good point. Why have you not responded to the posts I have made that counter your argument, and quite well from my POV. I would be interested in why you have not responded. As a person with some pretty good medical background, including the education that goes with it, what do you have to say to what I posted?

If you would like to consolidate your questions instead of bombarding me with multiple posts, I could respond more readily. You are not the only poster I am responding to and the others at least responded in a more concise manner.

Its getting late here and a windstorm kept me awake most of last night, so I will respond more tomorrow....

Good night from Oz....

 

[JoStories]

Yes I did. No true JW will accept blood for any reason. Our position on blood is not negotiable. Our outcomes are almost always good, despite the dire predictions of medical personnel

And yet Olinda posted that your own publication, touting how proud they were of how these children-- I repeat...CHILDREN... died as a result of the parents refusing them the option of getting a blood transfusion. I can think of no alternative that would be acceptable over death. Not one. So your statement that "our outcomes are almost always good" seems a bit out of place, and rather myopic on your part. If you, as an adult, and I assume you are an adult, want to refuse blood despite being told you will die and then you do, that is your choice. I find that parents' refusing blood for children who cannot take a part in that choice nor do they have the ability to understand the abstract concepts of death and avoiding that, is in a word, reprehensible.

 

[JoStories]

In a worst case scenario, the legal system takes it out of our hands. We have no legal say, so all we can do is pray for a good outcome, knowing that we did all we could not to break God's law on the sanctity of blood. We do not force our views on anyone else and as parents, we do not assign another religion to our children.

I understand that, for you and those of your faith, this is what you consider best. I was incredibly fortunate to have parents who felt that children should be free to choose what religion, including none, worked best for us. I was exposed and taught about Christianity (my mother is a devout Baptist), atheism (my father was a life long atheist), Quakerism ( my favorite cousin), NA faiths (my grandmother was a NA), Judaism (our neighbors) and so on. We were not forced at all and when we reached the age of knowing what religion was truly about, we were given free choice. I can think of no better way to raise children.

 

[JoStories]

If you would like to consolidate your questions instead of bombarding me with multiple posts, I could respond more readily. You are not the only poster I am responding to and the others at least responded in a more concise manner.

Its getting late here and a windstorm kept me awake most of last night, so I will respond more tomorrow....

Good night from Oz....

I see that you have responded to just about every post presented by Pudding, Shadow, George, and others but not mine. I find that interesting. Can you explain that? Is it that I have advanced degrees in medical care or simply that you have no answer to what I have presented?

 

[JoStories]

Seems to be a problem with comprehension around here.... .

It is the medical profession itself....people who specialize in that field of medicine who are now saying that blood transfusions are NOT as "life saving" as was once thought. It is not ME saying so. Do you understand this? A "paradigm shift" is a complete change of mind on the issue.....and urgent change is recommended.

For goodness sake...watch the video and see what happens to a person's circulatory system when blood is administered compared to when a volume expander is used. This evidence speaks for itself. The transfusion actually hindered the red cell delivery, whereas the volume expander actually facilitated the delivery of red cells that are in left in circulation......did you see the evidence? If you did, then your response is nothing but waffle.

Deeje, it is ONE group of medical personnel reporting what they found and most of what they reference is antiquated. You are calling this a 'paradigmatic shift' where such is simply not the case. If, ten years from now, the shift actually did occur, I might be inclined to agree but as it stands right now, this is not the case. You presented one video and some links that corroborate your views where the rest of us have presented many counter links which state that your group is flat out wrong. If you had one group, and some actually do still exist, that stated that Freud was correct in his psychoanalytic views, would you say that that then is a paradigmatic shift? Not even close. Freud has been debunked, with a few exceptions to his theorems. This is the same as you are trying to present here.

 

[JoStories]

This happened to my mother. She was too anemic for the operation and it had to be postponed

You do understand what this meant, non? It meant that the very real potential for her to lose blood during the surgery precluded the option of having the surgery because she needed blood before the surgery.

 

[McBell]

Believe it or not...it's none of my business what anyone does with this information. It was presented FYI. OK?

Your back peddling.
The video in the OP was presented to justify the JW stance on blood transfusions.